I think the point is that most of the state IS farmers besides that one area. You see it in FL alot. If you look at it broken down MOST of the state is red but a few areas are blue and since they are the highly populated areas thats what we usually end up with.

But that would mean the majority of the people, or MOST of the state (population wise) is blue. Geographical size shouldnt matter.

The point is, especially for statewide issues, policies on things like how much water farmers are allowed to divert from the Columbia River and things like that are being determined by people who live in the corridor from Olympia to Seattle, who were elected by people in Seattle, who all have NO IDEA about how anything to do with agriculture works and live really far away from the farmers.

They might not have any idea about farming, but the Columbia flows to them right? How many cities use water from the Columbia to do all sorts of things? Why shouldn't they have a say in it?

But I meant this more as a national election policy point, not a state specific one because a lot of people argue that it's not "fair" when most of the population votes one way, the electoral votes go that way too.

Quote:

I think the point is that most of the state IS farmers besides that one area. You see it in FL alot. If you look at it broken down MOST of the state is red but a few areas are blue and since they are the highly populated areas thats what we usually end up with.

Most of the state isn't "Red", most of it is unpopulated space. Most of the people actually voted "blue", so I ask again, Why should unpopulated land with few people have more say in elections than those with more people?

But that would mean the majority of the people, or MOST of the state (population wise) is blue. Geographical size shouldnt matter.

Well, dividing a state and slicing up electoral votes shouldn't make that big of a difference really, because they will still be divided according to population. If anything it would make them more accurate because a wider demographic will be represented (hey! maybe even a 3rd party candidate would get some! *gasp*).

Here about half the population of the state is rural and half is in king and pierce county.

Our state elections are pretty dang close. This last governors race there was only a difference of 51%-49%.

The election before that Gregoire only won by 133 votes.

I just think that it's reasonable for people to be governed by folks they chose and that actually know something about their needs, etc. so it isn't a big liberal city folks vs. farmers thing. It wouldn't be as big of a problem if people bothered to be educated about how statewide policies affect agricultural practices, but they don't.

They might not have any idea about farming, but the Columbia flows to them right? How many cities use water from the Columbia to do all sorts of things? Why shouldn't they have a say in it?

But I meant this more as a national election policy point, not a state specific one because a lot of people argue that it's not "fair" when most of the population votes one way, the electoral votes go that way too.

Like I said in the last post, it's not "most" in our state. It's consistently been 50/50 for decades.

The electoral votes are divided by population anyway, so they aren't getting more of a say. Alaska has something like 3, even though they're huge vs. New Jersey or any of those other small eastern states.
Not that many cities use Columbia water. Seattle and Thurston county doesn't get any of it. It's more than 100 miles south of Oly. It runs directly through eastern WA , then cuts due west along the Oregon/WA border. Portland probably uses some.

Usually the water use stuff boils down to a knee jerk OMGSAVETHESALMON!!! feel good thing. But there are a bunch of hydroelectric dams up and down the Columbia anyway that already screwed up the salmon runs. And they're never going to let water levels drop enough to effect hydro power. Even the farmers don't want that.

Well, dividing a state and slicing up electoral votes shouldn't make that big of a difference really, because they will still be divided according to population. If anything it would make them more accurate because a wider demographic will be represented (hey! maybe even a 3rd party candidate would get some! *gasp*).

Here about half the population of the state is rural and half is in king and pierce county.

Our state elections are pretty dang close. This last governors race there was only a difference of 51%-49%.

The election before that Gregoire only won by 133 votes.

I just think that it's reasonable for people to be governed by folks they chose and that actually know something about their needs, etc. so it isn't a big liberal city folks vs. farmers thing. It wouldn't be as big of a problem if people bothered to be educated about how statewide policies affect agricultural practices, but they don't.

I know the electoral votes are based on population, that was my point. You said this

Quote:

Our entire state's election/electoral votes hinge on King County alone, which really isn't fair for the rest of the state's population

You said it wasn't fair, I asked why not and how it should be changed.

as for your state's water issues??? I don't know, I happen to think farming in areas that aren't prone to fruitful yields without that much intervention are probably areas left unfarmed, but I live in the midwest where water isn't much of an issue yet. But starting to become as dry areas want to build pipelines from the great lakes and water bottling companies set up shop and drop the water tables to sell bottled water around the world.

and saving salmon isn't knee jerk, any fertile ground in the western states can mostly be traced back to having the salmon in the first place. no argument on how much we've screwed that up, but doing things to protect them is hardly knee jerk. There's a much bigger picture to be educated about than just farming practices and water.

Right, we are agreeing its based on population...but how is that not fair? It was said the "big cities" decided but its not that, its the majority of the population decided.

Also, its not like everyone in rural areas is conservative and everyone in cities is liberal. My one SIL and her family have a farm and are very "blue"...one of my BILs lives in a very big "blue" city and is red.

Ya, but I don't think a voting thing is going to fix how broken we are. Texas might have the right idea if they can get enough other states to follow. Sometimes knocking down a house and building a new one is better than trying to repair the old one.

It's not that voting will fix it, it's that why would I expect that someone who won't look beyond the first two names on a ballot to do anything more drastic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDogBuford

Again, though: no one is seceding. The SCOTUS decided the issue in 1869, and found that it's unconstitutional.

I always thought that declaring secession unconstitutional was a lot like making suicide a crime

__________________In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. ~Buddha

Stupid is the most notoriously incurable and contagious disease known to mankind. If you find yourself in close proximity to someone infected with stupid, walk away as soon as said infection is noted.

There are few things more nauseating than pure obedience. ~ Kvothe

***8206;"silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation."
— Rumi
Be a god. Know when to shut up.

I know the electoral votes are based on population, that was my point. You said this

You said it wasn't fair, I asked why not and how it should be changed.

as for your state's water issues??? I don't know, I happen to think farming in areas that aren't prone to fruitful yields without that much intervention are probably areas left unfarmed, but I live in the midwest where water isn't much of an issue yet. But starting to become as dry areas want to build pipelines from the great lakes and water bottling companies set up shop and drop the water tables to sell bottled water around the world.

and saving salmon isn't knee jerk, any fertile ground in the western states can mostly be traced back to having the salmon in the first place. no argument on how much we've screwed that up, but doing things to protect them is hardly knee jerk. There's a much bigger picture to be educated about than just farming practices and water.

Eastern Washington is the largest apple producer in the world. We also produce a huge amount of wheat and they were the only farmers that whose corn wasn't wiped out completely by the weirdo heat that got everyone else this year. It's very fertile, but it has nothing to do with the salmon and everything to do with all that nice rich volcanic stuff the Cascades spewed east over the past several million years.

And when people went and screwed up the world's biggest salmon run by plopping fourteen dams across it, farmers wanting some water for their orchards is the last thing that's going to hurt the runs.

Western WA has no problem with water supply (lol!). We're sitting on an underground lake right here. Our city has it's own artesian well.

volcanoes add minerals, and millenia of salmon spawns adding organic material to not only the water, but by feeding the populations of animals that depended on them, added organic material to the soil that in turn allowed other organic materials to form, were pretty important to the soils of most western states. all that windblown silt that settled full of organic material didn't come only from volcanoes and the nutrients they see in organic matter high up in the mountains that are discovered to be from the oceans are there because of salmon.

so yeah, they did have a lot to do with it. The entire columbia river basin was hugely impacted the the salmon spawn all up and down the basin. To discredit their impact is very short sighted.